Authority status: Internal Operating Rule, active and published for technical review.
Purpose
UXR invites outside review because reviewers can identify weak reasoning, missing distinctions, inconsistent scope, privacy risks, hidden assumptions, and better questions. That review must not silently become evidence about the underlying incident.
The source boundary
Review feedback is analysis of UXR, not evidence of what happened. A reviewer's hypothetical, example, paraphrase, reconstruction, or mistaken restatement must not be imported into an Incident Case, Evidence Item, or Evaluation finding unless UXR separately traces the proposition to contributor testimony, an artifact, an organization-authored record, a public source, or another actual evidence source.
What review can do
A reviewer may challenge a conclusion, identify a possible contradiction, point out a privacy risk, propose an alternative explanation, identify an omitted proposition, or direct UXR back to a source. Any of those actions can trigger a source audit or correction.
What review cannot do
Reviewer agreement does not corroborate an incident. Reviewer skepticism does not weaken testimony. A reviewer-created example does not become contributor testimony. A reviewer paraphrase does not become an organization statement. A reviewer hypothesis does not become a finding simply because it sounds plausible.
Trace before mutation
Before changing a case because of review feedback, UXR must ask what source actually supports the proposed change. If the source exists, cite or record that source and change the case on that basis. If the source does not exist, preserve the point as a reviewer question or hypothesis rather than a case fact.
Corrections
If review exposes a real UXR error, UXR should correct the record and identify the correcting evidence. The correction belongs to UXR when UXR imported, inferred, summarized, or classified something incorrectly. The contributor should not inherit responsibility for a reviewer or UXR mistake.
Why this matters
Outside review is valuable precisely because it can pressure-test the framework. That value disappears if review commentary is allowed to contaminate the evidence it is supposed to examine. Review should make UXR more corrigible without becoming an untraceable source of facts.